US Elections: Ted Cruz, F, Marry, or Kill

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I don't understand what you don't understand about it.

The entire premise?

Clinton, 2008, damage to progressive causes. What are you talking about? What thing are you trying to reference? Cause I've no clue what event you think you are talking about. Especially in the context of the discussion above your post.

[IheartIheartTesla]

There appeared to be a contention that Sanders was causing harm to progressive causes by committing to stay so long in the campaign, and I was reminding everyone that an extended run by Clinton in 2008 (all the way to June) did progressive causes no harm. Similarly, an extended run by Sanders all the way to at least June would also do no harm.

And everyone should enjoy the convention.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

There appeared to be a contention that Sanders was causing harm to progressive causes by committing to stay so long in the campaign, and I was reminding everyone that an extended run by Clinton in 2008 (all the way to June) did progressive causes no harm. Similarly, an extended run by Sanders all the way to at least June would also do no harm.

And everyone should enjoy the convention.

But Clinton merely stayed in the race in case of a late assassination occurring. By articulating actual principles he intends to continue advocating for even in defeat, don't you see that Sanders is literally destroying progressivism?

[lokisnow]

Since 2010, Debbie wasserman Schultz has pursued a democrat strategy of deliberately not competing in elections in the house and senate, this eroded the historically massive margins democrats had in 2008, and now she's successfully gotten rid of both majorities pursuing her philosophy that the best way to win is to try to lose. The dnc and dws have completely decimated the party and nearly made it impossible to win.

 

Now we are looking at a possible trump nomination, but democrats will not re take the house if he is a disasterous general election candidate because the dnc and dws have insisted that democrats not even put forward a candidate to run in the districts most likely to flip in the event of a trump collapse. or if a candidate is running,dws and the dnc have made sure it is a very weak candidate and will refuse to help them win in the event that a trump candidacy makes flipping a red district possible.

Please read the article democrats are not running candidates in 27 out of 163 districts That have closed general election registration already, six of those 27 are seats that might flip in a trump candidacy, but now they are guaranteed republican seats. In Virginia which closes on March 31 democrats have no candidate for an OPEN seat in a district that was only Romney plus 2!!!! This is why democrats fucking suck. They do not fucking compete!

https://newrepublic.com/article/131919/retaking-house-democratic-pipe-dream

 

personally, I think that dws does not like winning the house because she is really a call center manager, her job is to force senators and reps into her call center three times a week and then crack the whip on them telemarketing themselves to rich constituents for money. Dws and the dnc do not want to flip red districts because after the election, their are not many rich donors in those flipped districts to tap, so their profit per congressman falls if they flip districts.  Also they probably are more profitable in the minority than in the majority because panicked rich people are more likely to donate with the added bonus that they don't have to accomplish anything legislatively  in the minority.

dws and the dnc do not want to win. They do not try to win, they ensure absolute failure in elections.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Since 2010, Debbie wasserman Schultz has pursued a democrat strategy of deliberately not competing in elections in the house and senate, this eroded the historically massive margins democrats had in 2008, and now she's successfully gotten rid of both majorities pursuing her philosophy that the best way to win is to try to lose. The dnc and dws have completely decimated the party and nearly made it impossible to win.

No question that the post-Dean DNC has a lot to answer for, but there are a couple of additional factors:

- 2010 was still on the gerrymandered districts from earlier in the decade (that the Democrats won the House in spite of this in 2006 and 2008 says how much the Republicans were in meltdown at the end of the Bush years). 2012 and 2014 were even more gerrymandered, of course. Democrats won a majority of House votes in 2012.

- The Democratic base decided to stay at home in 2010 because Obama hadn't delivered instant utopia. 

[ThinkerX]

Since 2010, Debbie wasserman Schultz has pursued a democrat strategy of deliberately not competing in elections in the house and senate, this eroded the historically massive margins democrats had in 2008, and now she's successfully gotten rid of both majorities pursuing her philosophy that the best way to win is to try to lose. The dnc and dws have completely decimated the party and nearly made it impossible to win.

And again, this is where the Green Party could infiltrate the Democratic Party, run 'Green Democrats' in those districts, and potentially win a few dozen seats.  I watched democratic candidates fail here in Alaska because the party simply could not be bothered to provide even token support.  Don Young would have lost his seat had the democratic party offered just a little support to their candidate.  And from what I saw, the republicans weren't even trying that hard.  It was almost like there was a sick bargain in place.

Say what you will, Sanders mobilized a lot of people and accomplished a great deal on a modest budget.  That shows the potential is there.  But I am almost dead positive the DNC will write off everything Sanders did.

[Myshkin]

There's a weird suggestion here that DWS is actually trying to lose races, yet there's very little suggestion as to why (other than she doesn't want to answer a lot of phone calls). Folks it's not laziness or even incompetence, it's a lack of funds. Part of that can be blamed on President Obama for bypassing the DNC apparatus and relying on his own competing network. The bottom line here is that it takes money to run these races, and the DNC just doesn't have enough to be competitive everywhere. The DNC has to make decisions on where to compete and where not to. DSW has pursued a strategy of competing for national seats to the detriment of state and local races, and has further focused mostly on seats she thinks can be won. We can argue the merits of this strategy, but claiming there's no reason for it ignores the actual facts. Now of course neither Obama nor Sanders has an obligation to raise funds for the party network but if they want a 50 state strategy, as Sanders claims, then raising money for the party is the first step upon which all other steps are predicated. To date Clinton has raise somewhere around $26 million for the party during this election cycle, while Sanders has raised effectively zero. Again I'm not saying Sanders has to raise money for the party, in fact that would seem a bit strange considering he's basically running against the party as it stands, but he has no moral authority to call for the party to compete everywhere if he's unwilling to help them compete.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Now this could get me excited about Hilary's campaign run. Please make this happen...

 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/the-case-for-vice-president-al-franken-213756?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

[lokisnow]

34 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Now this could get me excited about Hilary's campaign run. Please make this happen...

 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/the-case-for-vice-president-al-franken-213756?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

I'd love that, but an appointed senator almost always loses the special election, can we afford to lose Frankens seat? No senator should be considered by Clinton, labor secretary Perez is still by far the best possible choice for veep she could make.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, lokisnow said:

I'd love that, but an appointed senator almost always loses the special election, can we afford to lose Frankens seat? No senator should be considered by Clinton, labor secretary Perez is still by far the best possible choice for veep she could make.

I'll take that tradeoff. It's just too perfect. She needs some personality in both her campaign and eventually in her cabinet.

[Ormond]

16 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I'd love that, but an appointed senator almost always loses the special election, can we afford to lose Frankens seat? No senator should be considered by Clinton, labor secretary Perez is still by far the best possible choice for veep she could make.

Where do you get the idea that "appointed senators almost always lose"?

According to the following article, appointed senators have much less of an "incumbency advantage" than elected senators, but they do have a small one, not a negative one, as your comment implies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/21/being-appointed-a-senator-doesnt-help-you-win-the-next-election/

[Kalbear]

Heh.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/712865465878626306/photos

[Ormond]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Heh.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/712865465878626306

That's funny, but unfortunately it is unlikely that 100% of women voters will really refuse to vote for Trump.

[Kelli Fury]

There's really not any chance of Minnesota electing a Republican senator right now. Not that he's going to be anyone's pick, but his seat would stay blue.

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

Now this could get me excited about Hilary's campaign run. Please make this happen...

 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/the-case-for-vice-president-al-franken-213756?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

 

 

•  

And Bill O'Reilly's head explodes...again.

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

3 hours ago, Myshkin said:

Now of course neither Obama nor Sanders has an obligation to raise funds for the party network but if they want a 50 state strategy, as Sanders claims, then raising money for the party is the first step upon which all other steps are predicated. To date Clinton has raise somewhere around $26 million for the party during this election cycle, while Sanders has raised effectively zero. Again I'm not saying Sanders has to raise money for the party, in fact that would seem a bit strange considering he's basically running against the party as it stands, but he has no moral authority to call for the party to compete everywhere if he's unwilling to help them compete.

If you frame it as a money question, then of course Sanders hasnt helped the Democratic party enough. Then again, his money comes entirely from small donations from voters, so I'm not sure how he can get big money to the DNC by those means. Host a fundraiser? He's already said he doesn't like that kind of fundraising.

He's already helped the DNC more than the DNC has helped itself by registering new voters. Access to his database and leftover money from his kitty will more than satisfy his part of the bargain.

By the way, I get a lot of emails from ActBlue that the sky is falling and they need money to build a sky-shelter, are you telling me there are no secondary effects of Sanders supporters also supporting other Democratic causes through this tool?

[Myshkin]

44 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

If you frame it as a money question, then of course Sanders hasnt helped the Democratic party enough. Then again, his money comes entirely from small donations from voters, so I'm not sure how he can get big money to the DNC by those means. Host a fundraiser? He's already said he doesn't like that kind of fundraising.

He's already helped the DNC more than the DNC has helped itself by registering new voters. Access to his database and leftover money from his kitty will more than satisfy his part of the bargain.

By the way, I get a lot of emails from ActBlue that the sky is falling and they need money to build a sky-shelter, are you telling me there are no secondary effects of Sanders supporters also supporting other Democratic causes through this tool?

The question of why Dems are losing at a state level is a money question. DNC leadership isn't running the party into the ground through laziness or blind ineptitude as some people seem to be suggesting; they are working with limited resources and so are targeting races where they think those resources will have the greatest effect. We can argue the merits of this approach, but only if we accept the reality of why this approach has been taken. A 50 state strategy requires more money. Bernie Sanders has absolutely no obligation to help the DNC elect more Dems, but if he doesn't help out then he also has no right to complain that not enough Dems are being elected. And yes if he were really concerned about it he would raise funds for the party at national and state levels, and he'd campaign for other Dems, things which Hillary has done for a long time, and continues to do. Instead he has targeted the DNC as an enemy, as the establishment he seeks to overthrow, which I imagine probably has a detrimental effect on the DNC's ability to raise funds from amongst his supporters. Giving the DNC his leftovers should he fail to get the nomination (which we don't know that he'll do) isn't enough, not if he truly wants the party to compete across the board.

[Bonesy]

Give Sanders equal exposure in the media and 2,700 dollar donations from banks and corporations    (this might be occurring, but without SP's it's hard to say) and maybe he could run a Presidential campaign while kicking down funds for Congressional hopefulls.

But that is not reality.

The reality is that he is promoting Democratic candidates all over the country, that rely on his donors who have legally maxed out contributions to Sanders.

And have a few dollars of disposable income. 

I'm going to have to cut this short. Got a $300,000 a plate dinner to attend.

[ThinkerX]

Ok, you guys are falling down on the job again.  Now, I have seen the odd claim or two that the petition cited in this article is mere satire.  But if its not, and comes to pass...what a (potentially) bloody mess.  Literally.  Does Cleveland have enough cops and emergency responders to contain things should this blow up?

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/guns-at-gop-convention-petition-tops-35k-trump-wants-to-study-fine-print/ar-BBqZJdB

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

5 hours ago, Myshkin said:

The question of why Dems are losing at a state level is a money question. DNC leadership isn't running the party into the ground through laziness or blind ineptitude as some people seem to be suggesting; they are working with limited resources and so are targeting races where they think those resources will have the greatest effect. We can argue the merits of this approach, but only if we accept the reality of why this approach has been taken.

I'd still suggest that allowing any congressional Republican to stand uncontested is blatant incompetence - even if it's just a case of putting a place-holder there, a place-holder is better than nothing.

(As for funding, ThinkerX has cited Alaska - which is a cheap media market, as far as political advertising goes. If it were simply a case of marginal cost vs marginal benefit, an extra $1000 for a Democratic candidate in Alaska would logically do more than $1000 in New York).